MAHLO & ORS v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION LTD [1999] NSWCA 358

MAHLO & ORS v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION LTD [1999] NSWCA 358

The appellants did not establish that Westpac owed a duty of care or that there was any actionable inducement or reliance arising from Mr Wilson's statements; nor was there misleading or deceptive conduct or unjust contract, as the evidence supported that the decision to purchase and security arrangements were the appellants' own, made with indifference to the securities taken and absent reliance on alleged representations. Costs of the cross-claim could not be ordered against Brett Mahlo as he was not a party to it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
['negligent Misstatement' 'loan Contracts' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'economic Loss' 'costs' 'cross Claims' 'unjust Contracts']
['negligence' 'trade Practices' 'contracts' 'practice and Procedure'] ['negligent Misstatement' 'loan Contracts' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'economic Loss' 'costs' 'cross Claims' 'unjust Contracts']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Westpac owed a duty of care to the appellants in providing advice regarding a property purchase' 'Whether there was inducement and reliance sufficient to establish negligent misstatement' 'Whether Westpac’s conduct was misleading or deceptive under s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'Whether the loan contracts and securities were unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980' 'Whether costs of a cross-claim can be ordered against a non-party to the cross-claim']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants did not establish that Westpac owed a duty of care or that there was any actionable inducement or reliance arising from Mr Wilson's statements; nor was there misleading or deceptive conduct or unjust contract, as the evidence supported that the decision to purchase and security arrangements were the appellants' own, made with indifference to the securities taken and absent reliance on alleged representations. Costs of the cross-claim could not be ordered against Brett Mahlo as he was not a party to it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs' appeal against the order that Brett Mahlo pay any part of the costs of the cross-claim be allowed but otherwise the appeal be dismissed." "Order 14 made by Santow J on 6 February 1998 is set aside and replaced: 'That the plaintiffs pay the first defendant's costs of the plaintiffs' claim against...